You remind me of President Clinton, wanting to know what the meaning of "is" is...
I am aware of what empirical evidence is.
Data: "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis."
Evidence: "data that confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation."
Empirical: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation of evidence rather than theory or pure logic."
This is what I have been arguing. Generally ideas of GOD cannot be supported by such as they fall outside the domain of science/sceintific evidence.
Scientific evidence = Empirical evidence.
The nature of the universe is such that all things within it are individually unique. Fingerprints remind me of this.
Assuming any GOD has fingerprints, how is such obtained and if such could be obtained, how are any able to verify such as an actual fingerprint of an actual god?
A fossilized footprint from Mt Sinai.
Supposing such exists and is discovered. What about the footprint would convince any scientist that it must have been made by the god of the Hebrews?
A godly fart.
Define 'godly fart'.
In other words, as I wrote in my last post, literally anything. Any empirical data will do. Got any?
See? As my above answers verify, the demand for empirical evidence (that which can be scientifically verified) is fallacy. It is a false demand and meaningless for that.
Your mistake here is that atheism does not exist in a vacuum. You should have asked yourself why someone lacks a belief in the supernatural. The answer, from everything I've ever read/discussed/heard from atheists, is that there is no evidence for such a claim. It's the lack of evidence that leads to the position of atheism.
This is an interesting argument which reminds me of an argument I had in a skeptical forum some years ago.
I too argued the position that atheism was a product of theism in that it exists because of theism, as a reaction against theism. Pretty much as you are doing here with your argument.
In response, I was informed by atheists that atheism is the default position of a human being, because a human baby lacked belief in god(s).
It was also explained to me that atheism as that default position had subsets
which were the various responses to theism and theist belief systems.
So that is why I have said here in this thread that Atheism if simply the lack of belief in the existence of any god(s) and that any other position of argument (including your own here) is coming from the position of a subset of atheism.
Separately, the request for evidence is usually made not because an atheist does NOT believe, but because a cultist makes the claim that the supernatural DOES exist. As the claimant, it is the responsibility of that person to support their claim. The inability of such claimants to provide this support is of no surprise to a person that has already tried to find such evidence and could not...
Could not because no evidence was shown by the claimant in regard to the claim?
Is the claim of the atheist that any claim of an idea of GOD comes from cultists?
Quite chilly I'm afraid. Why would you think anything "extraordinary" is required, hmm? Every single one of the vast number of god creatures that humans have been infatuated with interact with the universe on a regular basis. Most gods have become human or possessed a human. They send floods, locusts, tornadoes, earthquakes. They speak to people all the time. All these interactions, in a universe proven time and again to exist with conversation laws, means evidence must have been produced. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. According to Christians for example, there are miracles happening on a daily basis. If these divine critters are doing things in this universe, there HAS to be data and information produced as a result. Tens of thousands of different supernatural beings, doing all manner of things on Earth, and you guys can't find even one little old scrap of empirical data to support the claim that this stuff is real? Surely there has to be something....got any?
I am not arguing the possible existence of a GOD aka Intelligent designer, from the position of Christianity or indeed any religion.
is that IF is there is a First Source to all of existence, then all
consciousness (whatever form or universe it is experiencing) can be traced back to that (at least philosophically/as a thought experiment) and that this would signify that we are all aspects of GOD (rather than separate from) so essentially, if that is the case, we are GOD experiencing human form in a physical universe which can be observed as being designed for a particular purpose in relation to the properties of the universe and consciousness within it, experiencing it.
I do not deny that aspects of Hebrew and Christian ideas of god are incorporated into this notion
, but this in itself does not make me a Christian or a Judaist.
In relation to miraculous claims of healing (as an example) the requirement for empirical evidence could be demanded depending on the circumstance but this is problematic as I have already explained in a prior post.
Such claims come from those who experience them through faith-based positions and since no scientists or science are usually present in relation to the events, it is difficult to establish any empirical evidence.
But as explained, the individual in their subjective experience of life has no need for empirical evidence as they are simply convinced through their experience and in this it is practically impossible for atheists to talk them out of what they themselves know they have experienced.
Problematic for the atheist (depending on the position of their subset), but not so much for the theist.